November 3, 2000

6:36 AM

``Here's a man who I have never heard anybody criticize once for improper conduct as governor, for the improper taking of funds, for payoffs, for improprieties in the governor's mansion,'' Perot said.
posted by tiaka (15 comments total)

Well, that's a weight off my shoulders - now at least I know which lever to pull on Tuesday...

Perot once again demonstrates how marginal he actually is. Maybe it's enough for his little mind that nobody caught Dubya doing anything wrong while he was Texas' governor. The real issue is that he also didn't do too much that anybody seems to think was right. He's an unimaginative, uninspiring, borderline unintelligent man whose already done all the damage to the body politic that someone of his limited capabilities should be allowed.
posted by m.polo at 7:39 AM on November 3, 2000

Perot is a pragmatist above all else. He summed up his perspective on the election (over and over and over again) in the King interview with the comment (paraphrasing here) that "It's a two-horse race. It doesn't matter how I feel about the two candidates. It's a two-horse race. Who do I put my bet on? The better horse." That's absolutely the pragmatist approach. The question is, are there other, more important considerations in this election or not?

I can see both sides, but Bush is evil (and worse, stupidity) incarnate and I am forced, kicking and screaming, to vote Gore out of self defense. Thank you, Republican party. Quayle, Dole, (formerly) Buchanan, Bush...what absurd horror will you choose to foist upon us next, I wonder?
posted by rushmc at 8:23 AM on November 3, 2000

Rushmc will continue to lose ground until he dies. Vote for who you want, or be responsible for electing those you hate.
I'm going back to "writing in" our own Sapphireblue. She will make a fine president. All hail the failing representative democracy!
posted by thirteen at 8:44 AM on November 3, 2000

umm...how, exactly, am I going to "continue to lose ground until [I] die"?
posted by rushmc at 9:44 AM on November 3, 2000

That was a bit unclear. You don't want to vote for Gore presumeably because he not far enough to the left to make you happy. You vote for him out of fear of the alternative, and perhaps he will win. In doing so you have lost ground in obtaining the kind of government you want, and the candidate you really want has even less of a chance to be elected in the future. Vote for Gore, and the center shifts to the right.
This is fine with me, as I am waiting for the center to move just a bit further to the right and reject the progressive tax system. Maybe you won't like that so much, but you will have to blame yourself when the day comes. I thank you in advance.
posted by thirteen at 10:20 AM on November 3, 2000

In 1994, while endorsing Democratic Governor Ann Richards, Perot said that George Dubya Bush had "no background or significant business experience." And he still doesn't.

Perot's an idiot just like Dubya. Must be from breathing that Texas air ;)
posted by terrapin at 10:21 AM on November 3, 2000

yeah no background except being the Governor... I don't care much for Perot but his infomercials were hilarious...
posted by gyc at 10:53 AM on November 3, 2000

You don't want to vote for Gore presumeably because he not far enough to the left to make you happy.

Actually, your presumption couldn't be more wrong. If any label can come close to describing my idiosyncratic matrix of political beliefs, it would be "centrist," but I don't find labels useful. As a former Republican, registered independent for 12 years and counting, extremism doesn't attract me in any of its forms, least of all extreme liberalism.

I just happen to find the worst of the Republicans more reprehensible as human beings than the worst of the Democrats.
posted by rushmc at 1:31 PM on November 3, 2000

From the CNN story on Perot's endorsement:

He also dismissed the new revelation that Bush was arrested for driving under the influence in 1976 in Maine.

"I checked this man out very carefully," said Perot, adding that he looked especially hard at the chances of Bush having an affair in the White House.

I can't believe that people take the seriously! I can just see the Trib publishing analysts' tables of estimates for the percentage chance of each candidate having an affair in office if elected.

(Plus, he already endorsed Hagelin, at least during the Reform disintegration, calling him "the only proper candidate.")
posted by sylloge at 2:09 PM on November 3, 2000

Ouch! My apologies for being so far wrong. My argument dovetails with the opinions of many other around these parts so it is not totally wasted. I seem to be alone in thinking the two main candidates would be nearly identical presidents, and the sadness so many of you will feel the morning after the election is something I got used to right after the primaries ended.
I'm torn between voting for Browne, as his platform seems so very fair to me, and sapphireblue cause I think she deserves at least one vote. Voting for either one of these two will allow me to sleep soundly at night. If I had to describe voting with the words "kicking and screaming" I might start thinking I'm not doing it right. You are right, the center is the place to be, it is just a matter of adjusting the azimuth.
posted by thirteen at 2:13 PM on November 3, 2000

Liberal-leaning libertarians, have a look at Hagelin. I was pleasantly surprised.
posted by sylloge at 2:32 PM on November 3, 2000

Liberal-leaning libertarians, have a look at Hagelin.

I took a very close look at Hagelin when he ran as the Natural Law Party candidate in '92. I ran a BBS (remember those?) then that got a lot of discussion about him, his party, and his transcendental meditation fixation. While some of his ideas have some appeal for me, I concluded that he was a bit of a nut, with neither the background nor the temperament to be president.

I'm surprised one of the major parties hasn't recruited him by now...
posted by rushmc at 6:07 PM on November 3, 2000

All I really know is the platform, and I agree with him on just about every issue. I don't actually know what he's like (only heard of him in the first place about two weeks ago). I think I'm only opening advocating him because I don't feel like it makes any difference and I'm not voting this year (for practical rather than political reasons). Basically, disclaimer: I don't know all that much about him as a person, just the platform he's running on.

I wonder if Reform would have kept above 5% this year if he had won the nomination ...
posted by sylloge at 7:03 PM on November 3, 2000

I wonder if Reform would have kept above 5% this year if he had won the nomination ...

No. Americans aren't ready for someone who advocates TM as the cure for all society's ills.

posted by rushmc at 8:29 PM on November 3, 2000

Gang. You're completely failing to miss one very important thing. Perot has a sick sense of humor. He has had two years to formally endorse Bush Jr., yet he has not. He waited until now. Why?

Don't you guys find it just a little strangely coincidental that Perot would formally announce his endorsement at about the same time the whole "DUI 25 years ago" thing appeared outta nowhere? Not that he would actually HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO with such a thing of course. He's a respectable businessman. *smirk* With a sick sense of humor.

The only thing Perot hates more than George Bush's family is someone like Buchannan who singlehandedly destroyed everything Perot initiated less than a decade ago. He killed two birds with one stone. Took a healthy jab at the Bush family while flipping off what's left of the Reform Party.

Oh, and I LIVE in Texas so y'all watch the wisecracks. Don't take out your hatred for Bush on the whole state. We're not all jackasses. ...Okay present company accepted - I'm speaking of Texans other than myself okay???
posted by ZachsMind at 3:34 AM on November 5, 2000